The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday allowed a criminal conviction to stand, even though it was based on multiple inferences that the defendant knew he violated the conditions of his bond.

Laron Antonio Donald posted bond after a felony arrest, and a stipulation of his release from jail was that he would not leave the state without approval. When he failed to appear for a court date, a judge issued a warrant for his arrest. Police later found Donald in Mississippi and extradited him to Colorado.

Donald received additional charges for “knowingly” violating his bond conditions and failing to appear. He pleaded not guilty. At trial, the bail bondsperson testified that it would have been rare for someone receiving a bond not to sign the paperwork laying out the conditions of release. She was not present when Donald signed the papers, however, and could not say whether it was his signature on the forms.

The officer who arrested Donald in Mississippi further testified that the defendant appeared to shake, sweat, and was “very nervous” when pulled over.

Donald argued that there was no proof to show that it was he who signed his bond paperwork, and therefore no proof that he knew about the requirement to not leave the state. While conceding the point, the judge inferred from the bondsperson’s testimony that “you can’t get out of jail unless you sign this paperwork,” and rejected the argument.

Even though Donald’s own lawyer acknowledged that the signature was Donald’s, the defendant appealed his conviction. He alleged that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald knowingly violated his bond conditions because of the uncertainty whether he read and signed the paperwork purporting to have his signature.

A Colorado Court of Appeals panel agreed with Donald and tossed the bond conviction. The judges reasoned that if Donald signed the paperwork, that did not mean he understood the conditions. A jury would have to infer that Donald signed the forms himself and further infer that he knew about the restrictions, something for which the prosecution had not presented evidence. The Mississippi officer’s testimony that Donald’s nervousness was related to his bond condition was speculation.

“It is the necessity of this inference stacking without any additional evidence to support it that renders the evidence insufficient to support Donald’s conviction,” the judges concluded.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Richard L. Gabriel reversed the appellate court’s ruling, saying that inference stacking “is one factor that a court may consider in determining whether the evidence presented” merits a conviction, although it is not the only one.

It is possible that inferences that depend on other inferences may become so separated from underlying evidence that they cast doubt on a prosecutor’s conclusion. Gabriel wrote that the prosecution’s burden was to show Donald actually knew about his bond conditions, not merely that he should have known.

Noting that the court must construe evidence favorably to the prosecution, Gabriel found that a reasonable jury could have determined Donald was aware of the directive to not leave Colorado, “given that the paperwork consisted of a single page and that the condition at issue was the first condition listed under the bolded heading, ‘Additional Conditions'”.

The case is The People of the State of Colorado v. Laron Antonio Donald.